More than 250 Illinois clergy — most of them in the Chicago area — have endorsed a gay marriage bill that could come up for a vote in Springfield before Jan. 9.

On Sunday, rabbis and pastors from denominations that support gay rights in varying degrees unveiled a declaration supporting equality for same-sex couples. Fostering faith, justice and compassion is a key component of their jobs, they said.

At the heart of this is the question - is homosexuality normal or abnormal? If it is normal then same-gender attraction must be tolerated and given the same standing as historical man/woman marriage.

Normal is defined as: 1.usual: conforming to the usual standard, type, or custom 2.healthy: physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy 3.occurring naturally: maintained or occurring in a natural state

We know that homosexuality occurs naturally. There is no homosexual gene, but epigenetic changes affecting hormones and a child's environment seem to be the cause of homosexuality. It occurs in some animal species, but is an evolutionary dead end.

Is it usual? No, homosexuality is rare and unusual. Heterosexuality is common and usual. There are no successful civilizations built on homosexuality. The history of humankind is heterosexual. So in this case homosexuality is abnormal.

Is it healthy? No, homosexuality is not healthy from a physical standpoint and homosexuals suffer from a variety of diseases directly related to their sexual practices. Homosexuality is not mentally healthy. See the DSM prior to 1972. Also see WBEZ's This American Life for Ira Glass' excellent episode on how the APA changed homosexuality from a mental illness listed in the DSM based not on any science, but on emotion and politics: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-words

It is also not emotionally healthy as seen in the suicide rate, drug and alcohol abuse rate and physical abuse rate in the homosexual community. Keep in mind that homosexuals are a very small subset of the human population, but a very large subset of the above groups. Even the term "gay" is an intentional misnomer created by those with same-gender attraction to describe their misery.

Given the above we should not be indulging those with same-sex attractions or encouraging more of it, but lovingly treating those with same-gender attraction. It remains a mental illness despite the politics and emotion surrounding the issue and is treatable as those who have left the lifestyle will attest.

I disagree with your assertion of homosexuality occurring “naturally!”

Hormones swings of high concentrations do not change your sex. They do not “cause” you to become homosexual, that is a choice. It may even be that “feelings” or “motivations” are strong. You may be “aroused” by seeing nakedness of the same sex and not of the opposite sex...it does NOT make you homosexual. It is an out of balance condition that when balanced changes everything you “feel.” Whether or not you act on it, when you go in that direction against what you later established firmly as abnormal then says you are homosexual or not. It is a choice, notwithstanding the feelings...you must act.

7
posted on 12/28/2012 5:25:20 AM PST
by ICE-FLYER
(God bless and keep the United States of America)

mad cow disease occurs naturally. primal dwarfism involves no more than a single basepair for example, so absence of high frequency of occurrence does not make something non existent at the level of DNA.

We are near to having technology available to correct DNA problems ~ in fact, glucophage and glipizide appear to work by rewriting DNA in the cell nucleus ~ and they've been around a good 20 years.

When the CURE appears on the market in pill form we'll still have folks wandering about telling us that it's a choice ~ and they'll refuse to take their pills.

Looks like the Trib doesn't have the space in its rag to list the churches endorsing gay marriages. Strange, isn't it, since there's no uproar from the media about the list of names and addresses of thousands upon thousands of gun owners by a shameless NY newspaper.

I'll wager this endorsement list will be the most interesting since Santa's 2012 Christmas list.

I'll also bet that the list is loaded with non-denominationals, radical and "progressive" main stream churches, college campus "churches", ministers who are Obama's old buddies and supporters in his old community-organizer neighborhood, and some just plain independently weird congregations scattered here and there around Illinois.

If any Freeper comes across the entire list and cares to post it here, I'd sure appreciate it and I'm sure others would, too....just to be "checkin' it twice" to get the feel of the pro-gay movement among the "religious" pastors, ministers, priests and rabbis in the state.

When will we see published an anti-gay marriage list of clergy endorsers by the liberal leading Chicago newspapers, hmmm?

Leni

12
posted on 12/28/2012 5:39:44 AM PST
by MinuteGal
(I'm Going to Update the Name That No One Dares to Utter and I'll Use It From Now On......OBAMUNISM !)

Whenever you see public officials endorse homosexual marriage, you will always find a wealthy homosexual benefactor hiding in the background. Just like Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich suddenly endorsing queer marriage. They were bought off. There is an Obama troglodyte (Rahm Emmanuel) hiding somewhere in all this. You can bank on it.

I read you comments with interest, and there's a lot of truth there; but I must respectfully disagree with your statement that the heart of the question is: is homosexuality normal or abnormal?

I say this because there are a lot of things that are normal (by some a simple one-part definition: i.e. does it occur in nature) and are also very damaging to human flourishing. You sort of covered this by asserting a complex 3-part definition of "normal" --- I get that --- but most people wouldthink of "normal" meaning "within a standard range of variations," and conclude that hoimosexuality is normal just like left-handedness is normal.

I would argue that the heart of the question does not require an evaluation of homosexuality as a trait (a tendency or personality variation) but does demand an evaluation of marriage.

Namely, in a world with a huge number of friendship and relationship possibilities, how is marriage uniquely suited only for a male and a female?

Most forms of friendship between adults occur without any external ceremonies, licensing, or regulations. It is assumed that two adults (or three, or any number of adults) will regulate their quilting circle, their bowling team, their fitness-walking-buddyhood, their joint foodie explorations, their gabfests, their romances and amours, or whatever, according to their own preferenes and without public recognition or oversight.

If the adults' relationship involves money, or property, or goods or services, that's what private contracts are all about: again, the adults are assumed capable of contracting to their own mutual satisfaction.

In sum: adults don't need oversight to regulate their relations with colleagues, friends, or lovers.

How is marriage between a woman and a man different from this? Because their sexual union (formalized in marriage) is the only kind of sexual union which can bring forth dependent offspring. And there needs to be an institution which keeps the man and the woman together with any children they bear.

In other words, marriage is not essentially about the intimate relations of adults. Theyu can manage that as they like. Marriage is essentially a bond between a potentially procreating couple, and the children who result from the bond.

If it were not for the possibility of begetting, the state would have no legitimate interest in the relationships of adults per se. There is no PUBLIC interest in regulating romances and love affairs. The PUBLIC interest is in securing the rights of dependent children by recognizing and defending their bond with their natural father and mother.

16
posted on 12/28/2012 6:12:31 AM PST
by Mrs. Don-o
(May the Lord bless you, May the Lord keep you, May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace)

Scripture Says: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Levitcus 18:22

Also: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters , nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality" 1 Corinthians 6:9

Nothing about Iillinois surprises me anymore. I have met many horrible and pathetic excuses for human beings from that state and this is not just a few here or there. Every last one of em I’ve met seems to be liberal and foul-mouthed with a nasty deposition. And just about every one of them were alcoholics and/or drug users. Need I say I don’t care fr that state or it’s people though there may be a few exceptions but I’m willing to bet they’re transplants.

Nothing about Iillinois surprises me anymore. I have met many horrible and pathetic excuses for human beings from that state and this is not just a few here or there. Every last one of em I’ve met seems to be liberal and foul-mouthed with a nasty disposition. And just about every one of them were alcoholics and/or drug users. Need I say I don’t care fr that state or it’s people though there may be a few exceptions but I’m willing to bet they’re transplants.

“At the heart of this is the question - is homosexuality normal or abnormal?”

Not at all. The heart of this is the question: How does God define marriage, and thus who, exactly, can a person who represents Him perform a marriage ceremony for?

The easy answer was given by the Founder of the Christian Religion, none other than Jesus:

Matthew 19:4-6
(4) And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”,
(5) and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?
(6) Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Jesus also dictated the Book of Revelation to the Apostle John. At the very end, when Jesus states who will be granted eternal life, he excludes people who are sexually immoral. See Revelation chapter 22:15.

Homosexuality may be a normal human temptation but no more or less than the temptation to lie, steal or murder. Just because it is a feeling or desire does not make it moral. People who want homosexuality to be moral are just as confused as when they think that open marriage or taking a five finger discount at Walmart is moral.

And what they think is moral does not change what God tells us is moral in His sight, by which He will judge us, for every person will be judged according to their works.

Revelation 20:12-15

(12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
(13) And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.
(14) And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
(15) And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire.

People who hold themselves out as a representative the author of these words (that is Jesus Himself) are shown to be disqualified when they opposed their meaning so plainly and openly.

"There is no homosexual gene, but epigenetic changes affecting hormones and a child's environment seem to be the cause of homosexuality"

Totally disagree.

I worked with a number of homosexual men, all of whom were free when it came to talking about their pasts and their sex lives. They all were victims of sexual abuse--by males-- in their childhood.

I had a hairstylist, a homosexual male, for years. He had been sexually abused by his stepbrother as a child, and he admitted it was probably the reason he was homosexual. Also, he had an absent, removed father, and an overbearing, over-protective mother.

There is nothing natural about homosexuality. It is a highly unnatural perversion, and those who give in to it are making a choice to do so.

26
posted on 12/28/2012 6:47:35 AM PST
by CatherineofAragon
(Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)

He wasn't endorsing it. He was saying what may be inevitable and used who he knows who are queer. He spoke of the GOP.

Since we know the GOP supported a candidate, mitt, who personally married perverts and under his admin, his state was the first in the union to approve same sex marriage; IMO, he was giving a heads up of what to expect from the GOP. If you read it with some sort of animosity towards Newt, you will come away believing like you do.

I agree. It’s like saying hormones cause sexual immorality. The occurence of a man and woman having sexual relations outside of marriage is a choice resulting of a weakened moral character, not simple hormonal urges. All those who are faithful and hold fast to their moral fiber will remain chaste no matter their hormone level.

This has nothing to do with doctrine, Mr. Tindell said. This has to do with how families live and how families exist and how families come together today. All are Gods children, and we are all worthy of the rights afforded in this country.

WRONG. All are NOT God's children. His children hear and obey His Word.

The others are His creations. And he doesn't create in them what HE condemns, either. Tindell, you are, merely, a creation and you are not in His family. Your master is satan.

After Oregon voted to ban gay marriage in its constitution, the Dimocrats pushed through a bill to grant domestic partnerships. I watched the hearings. When the Ctholic church testified, they asked for a couple of language tweaks (for church protection). But when referencing the bill as a whole, the lobbyist said, “The Catholic Church is not in the business of discrimination, therefore we take no position on the bill.” It sailed through.

"The homo crowd are quick to bring up the fact that the elderly get married and that they usually have no potential for offspring."

The legal standard is not "How likely is it that pregnancy will occur?" but "Can they perform the procreative (marital) act?"

The likelihood of pregnancy could only be determined by ongoing physiological testing and surveillance, which is clearly way, WAY outside of the competence of the government. Plus, people who think they can't conceive, often do; and people who think they will conceive, often don't.

I read that in the USA there's about 180-200 births per year reported among mothers over age 50, with a third of them being over 55.

And of course, some young and ostensibly healthy couples have natural, normal (i.e. uncontracepted) intercourse for years without successfully achieving pregnancy.

So the only non-privacy-invading criterion the state can properly act upon, is "Can they do the procreative act?" Which is "Are they a male and a female capable of intercourse?"

The procreative act is "the marital act," the only act which can "consummate" marriage; to be precise, an act which deposits the semen of the male in the genital tract of the female. If you can't or won't do that, then even in civil law as I understand it, the marriage is considered as not having been consummated, and so can be annuled. It never "happened."

Two men or two women can't perform the marital act. Trannies can't either (there's either a trans-"male" with no sperm, or a trans-"woman" with no genital tract.) They can't consummate a marriage.

Q.E.D.

46
posted on 12/28/2012 9:28:13 AM PST
by Mrs. Don-o
(May the Lord bless you, May the Lord keep you, May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace)

You actually agree. It is a choice, a naturally occurring event like heterosexuality. We choose to act on it. Right now the best evidence is that it is a mental illness caused by epigenetic activity in the womb or by a child’s environment.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.